Screening for Prostate Cancer

Mack Ruffin, Michael S. Klinkman, Michael D. Fetters, Lee A. Green

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

We commend Dr Krahn and colleagues for their outstanding decision analysis on screening for prostate cancer. They collected and effectively used available literature for a sophisticated Markov model analysis. Despite the use of an artificial one-time screening scenario, their evaluation avoids the bias evident in the accompanying Editorial. The authors provide recommendations regarding PSA and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but fail to address the role of DRE. Available literature provides no evidence supporting DRE as a screening test for prostate cancer or colorectal cancer. While the authors appear to include DRE in their conclusion “screening for prostate cancer cannot be justified as a rational health policy,”1 they leave DRE out of their recommendation that “asymptomatic men not be screened with PSA or TRUS.” Their data support not screening with DRE. The article and Editorial illustrate a difference between generalists' and specialists' approach to prostate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalJAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume273
Issue number15
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Decision Support Techniques
Health Policy
Prostate
Colorectal Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Ruffin, Mack ; Klinkman, Michael S. ; Fetters, Michael D. ; Green, Lee A. / Screening for Prostate Cancer. In: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995 ; Vol. 273, No. 15.
@article{2b037a1c0c2e42a9a1019760b4faae2d,
title = "Screening for Prostate Cancer",
abstract = "We commend Dr Krahn and colleagues for their outstanding decision analysis on screening for prostate cancer. They collected and effectively used available literature for a sophisticated Markov model analysis. Despite the use of an artificial one-time screening scenario, their evaluation avoids the bias evident in the accompanying Editorial. The authors provide recommendations regarding PSA and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but fail to address the role of DRE. Available literature provides no evidence supporting DRE as a screening test for prostate cancer or colorectal cancer. While the authors appear to include DRE in their conclusion “screening for prostate cancer cannot be justified as a rational health policy,”1 they leave DRE out of their recommendation that “asymptomatic men not be screened with PSA or TRUS.” Their data support not screening with DRE. The article and Editorial illustrate a difference between generalists' and specialists' approach to prostate.",
author = "Mack Ruffin and Klinkman, {Michael S.} and Fetters, {Michael D.} and Green, {Lee A.}",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jama.1995.03520390031021",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "273",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "15",

}

Screening for Prostate Cancer. / Ruffin, Mack; Klinkman, Michael S.; Fetters, Michael D.; Green, Lee A.

In: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 273, No. 15, 01.01.1995.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for Prostate Cancer

AU - Ruffin, Mack

AU - Klinkman, Michael S.

AU - Fetters, Michael D.

AU - Green, Lee A.

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - We commend Dr Krahn and colleagues for their outstanding decision analysis on screening for prostate cancer. They collected and effectively used available literature for a sophisticated Markov model analysis. Despite the use of an artificial one-time screening scenario, their evaluation avoids the bias evident in the accompanying Editorial. The authors provide recommendations regarding PSA and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but fail to address the role of DRE. Available literature provides no evidence supporting DRE as a screening test for prostate cancer or colorectal cancer. While the authors appear to include DRE in their conclusion “screening for prostate cancer cannot be justified as a rational health policy,”1 they leave DRE out of their recommendation that “asymptomatic men not be screened with PSA or TRUS.” Their data support not screening with DRE. The article and Editorial illustrate a difference between generalists' and specialists' approach to prostate.

AB - We commend Dr Krahn and colleagues for their outstanding decision analysis on screening for prostate cancer. They collected and effectively used available literature for a sophisticated Markov model analysis. Despite the use of an artificial one-time screening scenario, their evaluation avoids the bias evident in the accompanying Editorial. The authors provide recommendations regarding PSA and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), but fail to address the role of DRE. Available literature provides no evidence supporting DRE as a screening test for prostate cancer or colorectal cancer. While the authors appear to include DRE in their conclusion “screening for prostate cancer cannot be justified as a rational health policy,”1 they leave DRE out of their recommendation that “asymptomatic men not be screened with PSA or TRUS.” Their data support not screening with DRE. The article and Editorial illustrate a difference between generalists' and specialists' approach to prostate.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029647942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029647942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.1995.03520390031021

DO - 10.1001/jama.1995.03520390031021

M3 - Letter

C2 - 7707620

AN - SCOPUS:0029647942

VL - 273

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 15

ER -